Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the June 8th, 2026 planning and zoning meeting to order. Commissioner King, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Commissioner Bruce Evans.

Here.

Commissioner Brianna King.

Here.

Commissioner Caden Grassi.

I'm here.

Commissioner Joe Colosimo.

Present.

Commissioner Sandra Griffiths. Present. Vice Chairperson Joe Huot.

Here.

And Chairperson Ted Erb.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Good evening, my name is Ted Urban, Chairperson for the Planning and Zoning Commission, as I will be presiding over the Commission's deliberations on the hearing item this evening. The Planning and Zoning Commission sits in a voluntary capacity to the Town Council. As such, the Commission reviews planning and zoning issues and forwards recommendations regarding these important issues to Town Council. All members are appointed by Council and volunteer their time. If you wish to speak this evening, during the comment period regarding the hearing item or wish to speak during the call to the public or on any matter, you must have preregistered with your name with the clerk in order to speak this evening. When you're recognized by the clerk, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. I ask that you direct your pertinent comments to the commission through the chairperson and not to staff or to individuals within the audience. a strict three-minute time limit will be imposed. As such, I ask that the speakers tonight adhere to this three-minute time limit when speaking. At the end of your three minutes, you will be asked to finish your sentence and be seated to allow for the next speaker. Regarding the public hearing item on the agenda this evening, proceedings will be conducted as follows. First, I will read the Excuse me. First, I will read the public hearing item into the record. Second, staff will then present the agenda item. And then third, the commission will have the opportunity to speak, ask questions of staff. At the end of that, the applicant may be invited to address the commission and answer questions from the commission. The floor will then be open for comments from the public regarding the hearing item. After all, pre-registered Individuals have spoken. The chair will close the comment period of the hearing. After the public comment has closed on the hearing item, the hearing item will return to the applicant for any clarification or comment. Then the commission will comment and make a decision. So call to the public. At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission respectfully asks that the individual wishes to speak on a public hearing item on this evening's agenda that they hold those comments until the public comment period during that agenda item. Comments will be held to a three-minute rule. Clerk, do we have anybody registered for open public comment this evening?

We do not, Chair.

All right. Do we have any announcements? Commissioners, Vice Chair, any announcements this evening? In hearing none, we'll move on to item six, approval of minutes for the May 11th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. Do I have a motion?

I move that we approve the minutes of May 11th, 2026 as amended. I have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second that, Mr. Chair.

Clerk, could you call the vote?

Commissioner Grassi?

Yes.

Commissioner King?

Yes.

Commissioner Colosimo?

Yes.

Commissioner Evans?

Yes.

Commissioner Griffiths? Yes. Vice Chairperson Hewitt?

Yes.

And Chairperson Erb?

Yes. Thank you. All right, we're open public hearing item, ZNC 26001, Windmill Farms, Consideration and Possible Action, to present Urban Planner 3, Chris Norlock. Mr. Norlock, how are you this evening?

Doing well, how about yourself?

Good, good.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Commission, and thank you for your time on this. I appreciate that. Tonight we're here for a ZOMAP change for windmill farms at parcel 402-02-048E.

Mr. Norlock, I don't think your microphone's working.

Apologies, is that better?

I think it's working. How about now?

Better. Better. Thank you. So this is a zone map change for windmill farms at parcel 402-02-048E. The parcel is located north of State Route 169 on the east side of 69, just south of the Kachina Place intersection there. The request is to rezone approximately 2.2 acres of vacant land from RL70 to CGPD, Commercial General Sales and Services Planned Area Development. As you can see, the properties just to the north are also CGPD. The uses proposed are Retail A, Retail B, Service A, and Service B. The site plan provided is a build out of two spec buildings. The buildings will be built in phases with the one closer to 69 there being built first. Each building will be approximately 9,000 square feet under roof area and a total of 85 parking spaces will be provided with this. This is an exhibit that was provided by the applicant of the uses that they will allow and that is kind of driven by the site and by the parking standards required in Chapter 13 of the zoning code. This area in the General Plan is designated as Pad 5-2. The character of the Pad 5-2 from the General Plan states that it offers diverse housing, commercial, office, and employment opportunities for people working or living in the vicinity of the State Route 69 corridor and to serve the neighborhoods and surrounding communities. The land uses are low density, medium density, medium high density, regional, community, and neighborhood commercial. the general plan designation does align with this rezone request. The reasoning for these uses in the PADD 5-2 is the proximity to the State Route 69 and State Route 169. These are just a few of the goals and policies that align with the proposed rezone, enhance and promote the State Route 69 corridor, and maintain a variety of commercial uses to meet the shopping needs of residents or visitors. Staff recommends approval of ZMC 26-001, Wood Mill Farms, and I'll take any questions if you have any, and the applicants here as well. I do have this in a PDF version if we need to zoom in on the site plan as well, so let me know.

Thank you, Mr. Norlock. Commissioners, anybody?

Mr. Norlock, there's an existing... APS easement that runs across the parcel. Has the applicant obtained a no conflict from the utility?

They had asked if you had gotten a no conflict from the utility on that for the APS easement that is in the parcel. No, not at this time.

Anyone else?

Just one or two general comments. If this was further down the line and we were approving an actual site-specific plan, I'd be very worried about left-turning traffic as it's heading down out of Prescott Valley. But that's a bridge to be crossed much later, as are many of them. I look at this as a conceptual thing right now, and it's commercial. I live in Quailwood. and we need more commercial down in that end of Prescott Valley, so I'll be voting for this.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Norlock, please. Share how the Pad 5-2 combines and marries with the general plan. When we're calling this a... going to a commercial general zoning, but we also call out a pad 5-2. So marry those two statements.

So the pad 5 is really just a general plan designation. And then the CG is the actual land use that is allowed, which is allowed in the pad 5. That's stated in the general plan. So we're rezoning to a zone that is allowed in the pad 5 by the general plan.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Chair, I'm sorry, I have one more question. You can go right ahead. So in the package, there was no landscape plan. I'm assuming that that will be forthcoming?

Yes, that's something we require on all commercial projects.

So I would like that to be put in the stipulations that a landscape plan be officially reviewed and ensure that it meets all compliance with our local codes.

Absolutely, will do. Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah, Chair, I kind of want to extrapolate off of my earlier question because I'm navigating a potential conflict as I am the land supervisor for APS. I'd love to have this come back forward with a successful no conflict. Being that my sister department manages that, I'd like to kind of understand where I can and cannot sit in this agenda item. But it's... Highly encourage that they do receive a no conflict from APS.

Understood. Understood. We'll make sure we track that in a minute. Mr. Norlock, is that something that we can put forward in the packet that they present that?

Yeah, we can make sure that you can put it as a condition that we get that no conflict with APS prior to going to either permits or council, whatever your preference is.

chair on that same note is it worth me recusing myself because of my involvement we don't have legal here tonight do we um can we table this and will we will we see this again or is this once our decisions made tonight goes front of council if approved will we see anything on this again relative to planning and zoning

This would not come back to Planning and Zoning. This would go to Town Council.

I think, to be fair to the applicant and to the town of Prescott Valley, I think I'm gonna recuse myself from this agenda item. Again, my recommendation still stands. Highly encourage for the applicant's success. Understood, understood.

Chairman, I have a... Go ahead. Mr. Nolak, won't this come back with a, you know, I know we have a site plan, but with the final use, won't it come back or it will not come back?

No, we're rezoning to the site specific. So this site plan in front of you is what we're rezoning basically to. And if they differ from that site plan, then it would come back. Okay. But as far as the uses, we just look at those internally.

Yeah.

Okay, all right, got it, yeah. Mr. Norwalk, we received this information from Dale and Diane Johnson regarding that they would like to be a part of this. Can you elaborate a little bit more on why we're not doing this all together?

So for rezones, they would have to come in site-specific. So even if they were all to come in at once, they'd be two separate hearing items. And so the Johnsons haven't brought forth an application to us at this point. And if they were, it would be, if I could go back, So they couldn't come in first because if you see that, the red is the CGPD, which is now what this property owner is looking at doing, and they're actually south of them. So if this were to get rezoned, then they potentially could come in and ask for that rezone. But if they were to come in on their own, it would be spot zoning, and so we would recommend denial. But I know there's a lot of history in that that I wasn't a part of, so I can't answer a lot of those questions that they have in there. But at this point, we just don't have an application from the Johnsons would be...

Yeah, because when I read this, it kind of looks like, and I hate to put it this way, but it looks like people just aren't playing nice together. You know what I mean? It seems like they've been trying to make an effort to be a part of this, and they're being pushed out. And yet when I'm reading what they're trying to do to be a part of this, it seems like they could all work this together for one, you know, achieve the same goal here. So that's what I'm trying to kind of comprehend with all of what I've read with their statements here.

Yeah, and I can't really elaborate more than that. I wasn't in those conversations with either of the owners or applicants. I don't know if maybe the applicant wanted to come up and speak about that. That's up to them. But I wasn't part of those conversations, so I'm unsure exactly what happened there.

Mr. Norlock, it's my understanding that if those folks were to come in, say, tomorrow with a plan, most likely outcome would be a shared easement for approach for both parcels as one potential. Without them being here, without them putting in an application, doesn't preclude or put the brakes on essentially development of the parcel adjacent, even if there is some easement issue to address.

I'm sure, I don't want to speak for ADOT, but I know they don't like to put Too many drives. They try to limit the amount of drives. So I don't know if, John, maybe you want to speak to that as a town engineer and being formerly with ADOT, if you could answer that. I appreciate that.

Might be able to offer a little bit of input, Commissioner and Chair. Those are good questions. A project like this will require a traffic impact analysis or a traffic impact statement. which will go to ADOT for review when ADOT reviews that. And if they're aware of another development in that area, they may request a joint use access.

Understood. I have a question for John while we're on that topic, Chair. So it's my understanding, though, doesn't ADOT look at this even though there isn't a proposed development? I mean, they do those corridor studies and when they want to make sure if the joint use access was possible, they might want to initiate that, especially in this area, you know, it's getting kind of crowded in there as it is for access.

they may mention that we do have regularly scheduled coordination meetings with a dot we do discuss projects are better coming up so they are aware of of what could be coming we do discuss that with them a project like this anytime there's a change in ownership or a change in use that requires an updated permit with a dot because they're accessing the state highway and we are aware as the town we do coordinate with them on our projects we are aware of their on the state highway. So we try to work with them to coordinate our projects the best we can.

Thanks, sir. Anyone else before I address my comments? All right. I have a couple, Mr. Norlock, for you this evening. I read through CAFMA's, I'll call generic letter of conditions for development, and two things came to my concern. First, when we look at the, if you can go back to the site plan, It's kind of hard to see on here, but the site plan identifies a private fire service line coming in off of the highway, which it will be, at least on the plan, is designated private, so it would be separated by a backflow prevention device at the property line. Also on this line is a single fire hydrant. And CAFMA has identified that just that the fire hydrant and fire hydrant spacing comply. They don't really give any direction on what that fire flow requirement is. So I think it's important for the applicant to understand what that would be for a single building, depending on the construction type of that building. At a bare minimum, they need to provide 1,500 gallons per minute of water out of that single hydrant on a dead-end main. That's going to be most unlikely. I'm not familiar enough with the water supply and what it is here in the town of Prescott Valley, but in my engineering experience and having done this kind of work for several decades, a single hydrant on a dead end will be questionable whether we can achieve that 1,500 GPM or not. I would highly recommend... With the addition of certainly potential for building B on the back of this parcel or this property to be built at a later date, that this would certainly warrant two things. More than one hydrant on the property, and it would warrant that that fire line, instead of being a dead-end main, be looped back to the town main. That would give them optimal water supply, and it would provide all the infrastructure in at this time so that when they build, if building becomes later, there's no tearing up of existing right away or any of that stuff to add or loop back this main and add additional hydrants. Any thoughts to that as a client?

I don't know from the client side. I can just see what Kafka and Kevin provided us. They are the experts, and I believe our utilities department will be in coordination with them as they are with all fire lines.

Yeah, my worry is that if we strictly go off the generic approach that both CAFMA has given and that the site plan shows, that it might be fine for now and for Lot A, I'll call Lot A or Building A, and or the expansion of Building A at a future date. But I can, with pretty... good assurance to say that for building B, it will not suffice. It would require that if the fire flow is not met for building B and hydrant spacing would exceed the 500 feet to the far backside and corner of that building, they would have to put in another hydrant. So it would be optimal to do it now than later is all I'm saying.

Yeah, and that's definitely something you could condition if you'd like in there to see that.

I would. If we could put that in as a condition and see what CAFMA has to say about that, I would imagine they're going to agree.

Mr. Chair, I am going along with your concern about the additional hydrant. That was one of my concerns. And I do want it to go on record that we have a letter from CAFMA that I would like to have in the stipulations, Mr. Norlock, dated June 1st, 2026. And Mr. Chair, maybe you can come up with a stipulation that the additional fire line and hydrant in additional infrastructure could be reviewed by CAFMA pending the future. Agreed. And maybe make that part of the stipulations I think would be the best way to do that.

Agreed will do. We'll make that a condition Mr. Norlock for review by CAFMA for the proposed building B.

I just want to be sure, I think we've talked about a couple conditions. I just want to make sure when the motion is made, we get those in the motion as well. I'm sorry, there's so much echo, I can't hear. I know. There's been a couple conditions tossed out there. I just want to make sure that we make the motion with those conditions when the motion is made.

Just have a quick question. And I totally agree with the chairman's concerns about fire safety and adequate water. But is that something that CAFMA would review in the normal course anyway with or without a stipulation at this stage of the game from P&Z? Wouldn't it just be part of their normal review that once they know what buildings are going in, what everything looks like, that would be the time for them to decide flow rates and adequacy and stuff? I agree with your concern, but I just don't know if it's a valid stipulation where we are now or if that's a bridge for later.

From my perspective, I mean, I don't disagree, Commissioner Evans, but, you know, they've looked at this site plan. They obviously have identified or approved or, you know, I wouldn't say approved. That's maybe not the right choice of words, but their letter just simply states, based after review of this site plan, that they just need to meet required fire flow and hydrant spacing, and that's all it says. I think you're right. I would imagine. I mean, I don't know CAFMA's process. Mr. Norwalk, you certainly probably could speak to this better than I can, but my experience is that they would look at this again. When building plans are submitted, they're going to review those for things such as fire code requirements, whether or not the building's required to be sprinkler to have a fire alarm system or this or that. I would hope they would revisit the issue of water supply and hydrogen spacing again, but the fact that they've just given the general statement, I more wanted to make the client aware that that's the most likely outcome when CAFMA does get to that step, that at least letting them know now and potentially if they chose to do those improvements as part of this with or without direction from CAFMA, you know, might be prudent, that's all I'm stating.

Yeah, I will just say, to your point, when building permits are submitted, CAFMA and our utilities engineers both look at those lines in the brochure as well.

Chairman, I have a comment to add. So, yeah, there's a question as, you know, are these improvements going to be constructed as part of the overall full build-out, even though, obviously, this appears to be going to be phased in, future expansion, or, obviously, and I agree with the chairman, that they're going to have to come back. And when they come back, then those requirements will be then amended for full build-out. So is it the requirement? It's a little sketchy in the letter from the fire department. But I would suggest that they're going to look at this and provide what's necessary. And that could be why they're being vague is because there's some, obviously, this isn't the full build-out that's being proposed. Site plan shows what is proposed, but they're commenting, I believe, just on a vague standard to kind of cover themselves when it comes time for a full build-out. I mean, that's what I would suggest.

Yeah, that's correct.

But we could include it as a stip, I don't know. Could Mr. Evans make a good point?

I feel we should include it as a stipulation and our job is not to be vague.

Right. Okay, that's good. And it's my understanding too, Mr. Norlock, that building A is going to be built as part of just a shell and core. There is no tenant. We don't know whether this is going to be a restaurant or if this is going to be a retail store. That's correct.

Or a service entity.

Just a quick question to that respect. Is the applicant here? Yes, they are. Are you guys going to build anything spec or are you going to wait to build? Sir, why don't you... It's going to be a spec. It will be spec. Okay, thanks.

All right, anything else from commissioners? No. All right. I'd like to open for the public comment. Clerk, do we have any already registered for comment on the hearing item this evening?

We do not, Chair.

All right. We'll close the public comment period. Let's see. I guess we need to vote then.

Mr. Chair, I would like to hear from the applicant, please.

All right. Can we have the applicant come to the podium, please?

Hello, hello, there we go. It was hard to hear back there.

There's an echo. Could I have you, sir, could I have you state your name for the record, please?

Yes, my name is Gordon Bowers. I'm with Dave & Associates in Prescott, Arizona. On behalf of the applicants, I can answer a few of your questions that you had. The first is, we weren't asking for a specific approval of this, approval of this specific site plan yet. We're only, this is only in support of the zoning request, zoning map change request. The other thing is there is another fire hydrant on the back side there It's hard to see because of the landscaping was added and didn't notice that the fire hydrant didn't show up But there is another fire hydrant. We're a well aware of the fire codes and what we might have to do to make fire Safety happen We are committed to put We're gonna sprinkle all the buildings as is code. If we do need to loop the system, we will find that out when we get further down the line and do the final engineering and do the pressure testing and all that. So we are aware of all that. We did add the other fire hydrant. There's roughly 200 feet from the corner down to the other end of the building. Well, actually it's more like 180, 200 feet. So that second fire hydrant does cover the second building. In these buildings, we basically have thought about building half at a time. So building A is going to the first 5,000 square feet of the building we built once the applicants get a client on board, a user. The reason we're asking for all of the possible uses in service A and B and retail A and B is because we don't know what may come down the road to fill the site. So what we're asking for today is to get the zoning changed so we can go out and market the property, knowing that we have the zoning in place. As to the Johnsons, we had a meeting with them probably, I'm going to say about a year ago, maybe last summer. We talked with them about their their project and they talked about our project and everyone seemed to be agreeable about the two projects working together so I'm not sure that if you're misinterpreting why they're calling in now and I don't know why they are either but we had a very good meeting we met with their engineer and their site plan seemed fine to us and ours seemed fine to them. The access to the access, both properties have access, ADOT access to their properties, and it's there, so. At the moment, we are planning on using our access, which will be split between the public and the private residential use in the back. The CAFNA letter does state about the gate being wider than 18 feet. That's a misprint on our plan. I failed to change 18 feet to basically 22 feet to accommodate the 20-foot road. I don't even know at this point if we need the gate, but the residential property, a single resident in the back will probably need their gate next to it. So that's how we envisioned that. Oh yeah, the landscaping plan. Yes, we plan to bring in a landscape architect to do it. Once we have a user identified and we need to basically work with them to see what they would like to see as well. So that's why we don't have a formal one yet. That comes down when we apply for the final development plans. That was our thinking on that. So hopefully I've answered most of those questions. If there's still more questions that I missed, feel free.

Well, I'll go down the line here, and we'll check with each. So let's start with Commissioner Griffiths. Do you have any additional comments for the client?

Thank you, Chair. Gordon, it's nice to see you, sir. Thank you for being here. I am impressed with the general sales and service listing that you put together for all the potential businesses. It's a nice list, and I think it's varied and can bring a lot of retail to that area.

Yeah, we hope so, too.

Yes. And so you did get the revised CAFMA letter dated June the 1st.

I read that today. It was the first time I'd seen it. And the last one was the March 10th, I believe, letter, which was even more vague. And I went back and looked at the site plan and noted that there are, well, yeah, the 18-foot gate I meant to change. That was mine. The other one, the outside radiuses of being 50 feet, I assume they're looking at this 40-foot radius on the outside. If I made them 50 feet, it actually narrows the road. By using these 40 foot outsides, we're actually widening the road by another five to six feet. So it actually helps the turning races. These are put in there to allow basically a a very long semi to actually circulate the site. So it'll handle a fire engine. So it looks like the outside radius is 40, and we could put them at 50 and still make it work, but we kind of want a little extra room in there.

What is your vision, Gordon, for the drive surface going through that project?

It'll be asphalt.

Totally asphalt. Will it be asphalt per the town standards?

Yes, it will be.

Oh, wonderful. Thank you. And then, thank you for calling out the third hydrant that none of us saw. It's on there. I see it. So I think that's great. Thank you. So that relieves, I think, some of the stipulation about CAFMA having to look for a future hydrant because, Chair, it's there, and I think we're fine with that.

I would agree. I think we'll remove that as a condition.

That's a moot point.

My blindness, I can't see it, so that's all right.

Yeah, I apologize for that. I added some landscaping and didn't know it obscured the second fire hydrant.

Thank you. And then I do have a question for Mr. McFadden.

Yes, ma'am.

Sir, if you could state your name for the record, please. My name is Ben McFadden.

Thank you, Mr. McFadden. I was reading the minute meetings from your meeting that you had with the public and the surrounding property owners. Correct. And there was a statement in there that Diane expressed flooding concerns and you showed her the grading and drainage plan. That plan has not been approved yet.

Correct.

You share with what happened with that?

Yeah. So kind of at a high level, the residents that's to the south of that current property right now experiences some flooding when they get heavy monsoon rain. And I think the root of the issue that Gordon has identified is that the existing property owners, the couple older gentlemen, re-graded and re-put some berms specifically to the north side of our property between that property so that his wouldn't flood. And that directed a decent amount of flow out into the ADOTs right away. So ADOT had expressed concern, hey, you guys gotta quit flowing water out there. And so... The discussion with Gordon's help and everything was is hey We're gonna we're handling the water here and we got to kind of take care of the problem that was created years ago from from the current owners and so Gordon has put some retention basins in there and settlement basins and and metered the discharge to then flow and and reduce if not remove the entire Concern from the property owner this to the south and So that was, yeah, it hasn't been approved, but that was what our discussion was.

Okay, perfect. And so you're aware that that will go through proper channels?

Yes, yeah. Gordon's done a great job, and ADOT have expressed a concern, so I think everyone's aware of it, and we're aware of it, that that has to be taken care of. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. McFadden.

Thank you. All right. Commissioner Evans, any comments for the client or staff?

Nope.

Commissioner King? Comments for staff or the client?

I would like a, thank you, Chair. Mr. Hardin, can you please help me understand a little bit about this letter from Dale and Diane Johnson, specifically the major concern related to the ingress-egress? They are asking, respectfully requesting, that this be contingent on approval by ADOT of a joint ingress-egress driveway on the frontage road. What have your conversations been with them with regards to this? I understand that we still need to go get that report. It's up in the air. It's very conceptual. Totally understand. But I'd like to get a little bit more information to address their concerns, particularly so that their property does not become landlocked.

Okay. We have done a traffic impact statement on the property based on what we thought was gonna go in there about a year ago, and that's what drove the driveway configuration to see into the property off of Highway 69. When we met with the Johnsons last, I think it was last summer, they talked about ADOT requiring joint access but they didn't really come out and say that they wanted a joint driveway I thought they didn't want that and so we didn't really continue that conversation with them and I haven't seen this letter but it sounds maybe they've had a change of heart or maybe I misunderstood them but It's possible, I suppose, to do a joint access, but we're getting awfully close to the other driveway, further to the south, to the cabin, the townhome things down there. So we're starting to crowd a little bit, but with all the uses coming off one driveway, it might actually stretch that driveway further down. Like I've said, both properties have their own access off the highway and it's ADOT approved. So they're not gonna be landlocked. Our project won't force them to do something different.

Okay, understood. It was a little confusing for me when I went and drove by the property to try to understand how that works, so I wanted to make sure I have visibility. But I'd like to just encourage moving forward that we keep these lines of communication open with the neighboring constituents that are around there to make sure that we're getting their input and their opinion.

Okay. Yeah, now that there's a concern that I didn't know about, we can go and retouch base with them.

All right, Commissioner Klaus.

Well, both my questions were asked, so thank you.

No, thanks, sir. Vice chair, you up? Yeah, chair. Thank you. Have a couple questions in Gordon. Good to see you. Hi, good seeing you. Same concerns as Commissioner King. It's not a matter of being legally landlocked, but ADOT has a way of saying, hey, we've got to combine accesses, and it's all based on use. When you guys had submitted the TIS, the traffic impact statement, that was submitted, obviously, to ADOT, I would imagine? Yes, it was. What kind of comments did you get back? Did they even indicate anything that would prompt some sort of a joint access based on neighboring uses that could potentially—

No, they did not bring that up with their comments back to us. They said we will wait to see the final plan, which we will develop as things go along.

I know that corridor, you know, they talk about right in, right outs, but, you know, they want to make sure people aren't going down to the new roundabout at 169 when that gets built and having to go all the way down, spin around, and come back all the way to get into a development. So We appreciate that. I understand that there'll be a traffic impact analysis potentially, either for your use or the neighboring uses, so I think most of those things will be addressed. You mentioned one thing that kind of caught my ear, and you said that we're not here to approve this site plan. And although I understand we're not here to approve a use, the zoning change, but I think we kind of are, in a sense, here to approve the site plan.

Well, our thought is if something has to change on it, of course, the site plan comes back for a review. Right. I guess I should say, I'm not approving it, you guys are, but I didn't think, like I said, we developed this site plan just to support the zoning map change request. There could be a couple other ways this could be worked out, and especially if we're gonna be working with the Johnsons again, maybe something else comes out of this, but who knows. I will point out to your first point, there is the left-hand turn access into the property. Oh, there is yeah, so they don't have to go down to the roundabout. That'll be built very soon, right?

But they want to go down there to get in they just do the left-hand turn And then that was my earlier point and my question to mr Norlock was that if you have to come back and I would assume a site plan change You're gonna be coming back before us again, and that's what my comment was earlier Yeah, and at that point it'll be a development plan that will meet all the codes that are that we need to be of course and That's it for me. I want to make sure to clarify that, that there's a potential for you guys to be back. And that was all the point I was trying to make a little bit earlier.

All right. Well, thank you, sir. We appreciate your time. All right. Thank you. Do I have a motion regarding the hearing item of ZMC 26001, Woodmill Farms?

Chairman, I'll...

Chairman, I'll make a motion to forward ZMC 26001 to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval with the stipulations stated for a landscape plan designed to code, and then a condition of approval would be that there'd be a letter of no conflict from APS.

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to add another stipulation that the CAFMA letter of June 1st be attached to the stipulations.

Understood.

In the stipulations.

I'll amend my motion. Okay, so amended?

You, Vice Chair.

Thank you. Have a second?

I'll second.

You have a second? Clerk, could you call the vote?

Commissioner Grossi, recused. Commissioner King.

Yes, I think even though we're in the conceptual stages here, I would like to give the team the opportunity to allow for this all to come together and get some more commercial spaces done. Yes, from me.

Commissioner Colosimo.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Commissioner Griffiths.

Yes, I feel that this is a badly needed zoning change and is an appropriate new land use for this area, so I do support this.

Vice Chairperson Hewitt?

Yes.

Chairperson Erb?

I would like to also comment that I think that this is a great use of the property on the highway there. I think speaking as a resident of the town, I like seeing this. I like seeing more of this development of the right-of-way and the frontage areas of the highway for things that, certainly on this end of town, folks could certainly benefit from. That end of town is hurting for this kind of stuff, so my vote is a yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you. Let's move on to our next item. Any action items? Commissioners, no action items listed on the agenda this evening. Does anyone have anything to add there? If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn. I move we go home. I have a second. Second. Adjourned.